Unmet need in rheumatology: reports from the Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting, 2023.

The Advances in Targeted Therapies meets annually, convening experts in the field of rheumatology to both provide scientific updates and identify existing scientific gaps within the field. To review the major unmet scientific needs in rheumatology. The 23rd annual Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting convened with more than 100 international basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties relating to all aspects of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We held breakout sessions in five rheumatological disease-specific groups including: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpa), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc) and vasculitis, and osteoarthritis (OA). In each group, experts were asked to identify and prioritise current unmet needs in clinical and translational research. An overarching theme across all disease states is the continued need for clinical trial design innovation with regard to therapeutics, endpoint and disease endotypes. Within RA, unmet needs comprise molecular classification of disease pathogenesis and activity, pre-/early RA strategies, more refined pain profiling and innovative trials designs to deliver on precision medicine. Continued scientific questions within PsA include evaluating the genetic, immunophenotypic, clinical signatures that predict development of PsA in patients with psoriasis, and the evaluation of combination therapies for difficult-to-treat disease. For axSpA, there continues to be the need to understand the role of interleukin-23 (IL-23) in pathogenesis and the genetic relationship of the IL-23-receptor polymorphism with other related systemic inflammatory diseases (eg, inflammatory bowel disease). A major unmet need in the OA field remains the need to develop the ability to reliably phenotype and stratify patients for inclusion in clinical trials. SLE experts identified a number of unmet needs within clinical trial design including the need for allowing endpoints that reflect pharmacodynamic/functional outcomes (eg, inhibition of type I interferon pathway activation; changes in urine biomarkers). Lastly, within SSc and vasculitis, there is a lack of biomarkers that predict response or disease progression, and that allow patients to be stratified for therapies. There remains a strong need to innovate clinical trial design, to identify systemic and tissue-level biomarkers that predict progression or response to therapy, endotype disease, and to continue developing therapies and therapeutic strategies for those with treatment-refractory disease. This document, based on expert consensus, should provide a roadmap for prioritising scientific endeavour in the field of rheumatology.

Consensus-based recommendations for the use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases.

The study aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases. The task force comprised an expert group of specialists in rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology, and pharmacologists, patients and a regulator from ten countries. Four key topics regarding biosimilars were identified through a process of discussion and consensus. Using a Delphi process, specific questions were then formulated to guide a systematic literature review. Relevant English-language publications through November 2016 were searched systematically for each topic using Medline; selected papers and pertinent reviews were examined for additional relevant references; and abstracts presented at the 2015 and 2016 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual scientific meetings were searched for those about biosimilars. The experts used evidence obtained from these studies to develop a set of overarching principles and consensus recommendations. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were determined for each. By the search strategy, 490 references were identified. Of these, 29 full-text papers were included in the systematic review. Additionally, 20 abstracts were retrieved from the ACR and EULAR conference abstract databases. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations were generated, encompassing considerations regarding clinical trials, immunogenicity, extrapolation of indications, switching between bio-originators and biosimilars and among biosimilars, and cost. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation for each varied according to available published evidence. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases were developed using research-based evidence and expert opinion.

Clinical trials of new drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: focus on early disease.

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases convened a task force of experts in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and clinical trial methodology to comment on the new draft 'Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of RA' released by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Special emphasis was placed by the group on the development of new drugs for the treatment of early RA. In the absence of a clear definition of early RA, it was suggested that clinical investigations in this condition were conducted in disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs naïve patients with no more than 1 year disease duration. The expert group recommended using an appropriate improvement in disease activity (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or Simplified/Clinical Disease Activity Index (SDAI/CDAI) response criteria) or low disease activity (by any score) as primary endpoints, with ACR/European League Against Rheumatism remission as a secondary endpoint. Finally, as compelling evidence showed that the Disease Acrivity Score using 28-joint counts (DAS28) might not provide a reliable definition of remission, or sometimes even low disease activity, the group suggested replacing DAS28 as a measurement instrument to evaluate disease activity in RA clinical trials. Proposed alternatives included SDAI, CDAI and Boolean criteria.

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review (SLR; 2009-2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations. METHODS: Two SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work productivity and education as well as patient self-assessment were investigated. The searches covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinicaltrial.gov for the period between 2009 and 2012 and separately for the period of 2012 to May of 2014. RESULTS: Of 8442 citations retrieved in the two SLRs, 176 articles underwent full-text review. According to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, six articles were included of which five showed superiority of a targeted treatment approach aiming at least at low-disease activity versus routine care; in addition, publications providing supportive evidence were also incorporated that aside from expanding the evidence provided by the above six publications allowed concluding that a target-oriented approach leads to less comorbidities and cardiovascular risk and better work productivity than conventional care. CONCLUSIONS: The current study expands the evidence that targeting low-disease activity or remission in the management of RA conveys better outcomes than routine care.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force.

BACKGROUND: Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. METHODS: A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. RESULTS: The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10). CONCLUSIONS: The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update.

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

Blocking the effects of interleukin-6 in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory rheumatic diseases: systematic literature review and meta-analysis informing a consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Suppression of the immunoinflammatory cascade by targeting interleukin 6 (IL-6) mediated effects constitutes a therapeutic option for chronic inflammatory diseases. Tocilizumab is the only IL-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) licensed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), but also other agents targeting either IL-6 or its receptor are investigated in various indications. OBJECTIVE: To review published evidence on safety and efficacy of IL-6i in inflammatory diseases. METHODS: We performed systematic literature searches in Medline and Cochrane, screened EULAR and American College of Rheumatology meeting-abstracts, and accessed http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. RESULTS: Comprehensive evidence supports the efficacy of tocilizumab in RA in DMARD-naïve patients, and after DMARD- and TNFi-failure. Randomised comparisons demonstrate superiority of tocilizumab in JIA, but not ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Other indications are currently investigated. Additional IL-6i show similar efficacy; safety generally appears acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: IL-6i is effective and safe in RA and JIA, but not in AS. Preliminary results in other indications need substantiation.

Consensus statement on blocking the effects of interleukin-6 and in particular by interleukin-6 receptor inhibition in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions.

BACKGROUND: Since approval of tocilizumab (TCZ) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), interleukin 6 (IL-6) pathway inhibition was evaluated in trials of TCZ and other agents targeting the IL-6 receptor and ligand in various RA populations and other inflammatory diseases. This consensus document informs on interference with the IL-6 pathway based on evidence and expert opinion. METHODS: Preparation of this document involved international experts in RA treatment and RA patients. A systematic literature search was performed that focused on TCZ and other IL6-pathway inhibitors in RA and other diseases. Subsequently, incorporating available published evidence and expert opinion, the steering committee and a broader expert committee (both including RA patients) formulated the current consensus statement. RESULTS: The consensus statement covers use of TCZ as combination- or monotherapy in various RA populations and includes clinical, functional and structural aspects. The statement also addresses the second approved indication in Europe JIA and non-approved indications. Also early phase trials involving additional agents that target the IL-6 receptor or IL-6 were evaluated. Safety concerns, including haematological, hepatic and metabolic issues as well as infections, are addressed likewise. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statement identifies points to consider when using TCZ, regarding indications, contraindications, screening, dose, comedication, response evaluation and safety. The document is aimed at supporting clinicians and informing patients, administrators and payers on opportunities and limitations of IL-6 pathway inhibition.

The appropriate use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatic disease: opinions of a multidisciplinary European expert panel.

INTRODUCTION: Given the safety issues of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and the robustness of guidelines, making treatment choices in daily clinical practice is increasingly difficult. This study aimed systematically to analyse the opinions of a multidisciplinary European expert panel on the appropriateness of different NSAID, with or without the use of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), in individual patients with chronic rheumatic disease. METHODS: /Using the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method, the appropriateness of five (non-)selective NSAID with or without a PPI was assessed for 144 hypothetical patient profiles, ie, unique combinations of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risk factors. Appropriateness statements were calculated for all indications. RESULTS: All options without PPI were considered appropriate in patients with no gastrointestinal/cardiovascular risk factors. Cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (C2SI) alone and non-selective NSAID plus PPI were preferred for patients with elevated gastrointestinal risk and low cardiovascular risk. Naproxen plus PPI was favoured in patients with high cardiovascular risk. For the combination of high gastrointestinal/high cardiovascular risk the use of any NSAID was discouraged; if needed, naproxen plus PPI or a C2SI plus PPI could be considered. DISCUSSION: The panel results may support treatment considerations at the level of individual patients, according to their gastrointestinal/cardiovascular risk profile.

Updated consensus statement on the use of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Since initial approval for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rituximab has been evaluated in clinical trials involving various populations with RA. Information has also been gathered from registries. This report therefore updates the 2007 consensus document on the use of rituximab in the treatment of RA. METHODS: Preparation of this new document involved many international experts experienced in the treatment of RA. Following a meeting to agree upon the core agenda, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify all relevant data. Data were then interrogated by a drafting committee, with subsequent review and discussion by a wider expert committee leading to the formulation of an updated consensus statement. These committees also included patients with RA. RESULTS: The new statement covers wide-ranging issues including the use of rituximab in earlier RA and impact on structural progression, and aspects particularly pertinent to rituximab such as co-medication, optimal dosage regimens, repeat treatment cycles and how to manage non-response. Biological therapy following rituximab usage is also addressed, and safety concerns including appropriate screening for hepatitis, immunoglobulin levels and infection risk. This consensus statement will support clinicians and inform patients when using B-cell depletion in the management of RA, providing up-to-date information and highlighting areas for further research. CONCLUSION: New therapeutic strategies and treatment options for RA, a chronic destructive and disabling disease, have expanded over recent years. These have been summarised in general strategic suggestions and specific management recommendations, emphasising the importance of expedient disease-modifying antirheumatic drug implementation and tight disease control. This consensus statement is in line with these fundamental principles of management.

Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis to Target: multinational recommendations assessment questionnaire.

AIM: To measure the level of agreement and application of 10 international recommendations for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to a target of remission/low disease activity. METHODS: A 10-point Likert scale (1=fully disagree, 10=fully agree) measured the level of agreement with each of 10 recommendations. A 4-point Likert scale (never, not very often, very often, always) assessed the degree to which each recommendation was being applied in current daily practice. If respondents answered 'never' or 'not very often', they were asked whether they would change their practice according to the particular recommendation. RESULTS: A total of 1901 physicians representing 34 countries participated. Both agreement with and application of recommendations was high. With regard to application of recommendations in daily practice, the majority of responses were 'always' and 'very often'. A significant percentage of participants who were currently not applying these recommendations in clinical practice were willing to change their practice according to the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey demonstrated great support of 'Treating RA to Target' recommendations among the international rheumatology community. Additional efforts may be needed to encourage application of the recommendations among certain clinicians who are resistant to changing their practice.

Two-year clinical and radiographic results with combination etanercept-methotrexate therapy versus monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a two-year, double-blind, randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how continuation of and alterations to initial year 1 combination etanercept-methotrexate (MTX) therapy and MTX monotherapy regimens affect long-term remission and radiographic progression in early, active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Subjects were randomized at baseline for the entire 2-year period; those who completed 1 year of treatment with combination or MTX monotherapy entered year 2. The original combination group either continued combination therapy (the EM/EM group; n = 111) or received etanercept monotherapy (the EM/E group; n = 111) in year 2; the original MTX monotherapy group either received combination therapy (the M/EM group; n = 90) or continued monotherapy (the M/M group; n = 99) in year 2. Efficacy end points included remission (a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28] <2.6) and radiographic nonprogression (change in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score < or = 0.5) at year 2. A last observation carried forward analysis from the modified intention-to-treat population (n = 398) and a post hoc nonresponder imputation (NRI) analysis (n = 528) were performed for remission. RESULTS: At year 2, DAS28 remission was achieved by 62/108, 54/108, 51/88, and 33/94 subjects in the EM/EM, EM/E, M/EM, and M/M groups, respectively (P < 0.01 for the EM/EM and M/EM groups versus the M/M group). This effect was corroborated by a more conservative post hoc 2-year NRI analysis, with remission observed in 59/131, 50/134, 48/133, and 29/130 of the same respective groups (P < 0.05 for each of the EM/EM, EM/E, and M/EM groups versus the M/M group). The proportions of subjects achieving radiographic nonprogression (n = 360) were 89/99, 74/99, 59/79, and 56/83 in the EM/EM (P < 0.01 versus each of the other groups), EM/E, M/EM, and M/M groups, respectively. No new safety signals or between-group differences in serious adverse events were seen. CONCLUSION: Early sustained combination etanercept-MTX therapy was consistently superior to MTX monotherapy. Combination therapy resulted in important clinical and radiographic benefits over 2 study years, without significant additional safety risk.

Follow-up standards and treatment targets in rheumatoid arthritis: results of a questionnaire at the EULAR 2008.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic approaches to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have undergone significant changes. The importance of tight control and early treatment, rapidly altered if goals are not achieved, is supported by evidence. However, it is unknown to what extent these insights are accepted by practitioners in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To obtain information about standard follow-up and treatment practices, and rheumatologists' aims in the care of patients with RA. METHODS: A survey conducted at the 2008 EULAR Congress. RESULTS: Most specialists, who were mainly from Europe and Latin America, were well-informed about recent concepts: two-thirds specified remission as a major goal. The experts attempted to reach treatment aims within 12-14 weeks, altering treatment otherwise. Disease activity assessment by composite measures is performed by a majority, although one-third preferentially relied upon their judgment. CONCLUSION: These results suggest the acceptance of ambitious treatment concepts in practice. Although voluntary surveys have limitations, the answers reflect widespread adoption of desirable standards of care.

The Stop Arthritis Very Early (SAVE) trial, an international multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on glucocorticoids in very early arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids (GCs) are often used as early arthritis treatment and it has been suggested that they induce remission or at least delay the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the need to start disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of GCs on patients with very early arthritis (symptom duration of <16 weeks) in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Patients received a single intramuscular injection of 120 mg methylprednisolone or placebo (PL) and were followed up for 52 weeks. Primary end point was drug-free clinical remission, both at weeks 12 and 52. Among secondary outcomes were fulfillment of remission criteria at weeks 2, 12 or 52, time course of 'core set variables' and proportion of patients starting DMARDs. RESULTS: 17.0% of all analysed subjects (65/383) achieved persistent remission: 17.8% (33/185) of the PL group, 16.2% (32/198) of the patients receiving methylprednisolone (OR=1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.92, p=0.6847). Analyses of secondary end points showed significant clinical benefits of the GC only at week 2. These differences subsequently disappeared. DMARDs were started in 162 patients: 50.3% methylprednisolone and 56.7% PL patients had to start DMARD treatment (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22, p=0.30). Significantly more patients with polyarthritis than with oligoarthritis received DMARDs (OR=2.84, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.60, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Neither remission nor development of RA is delayed by GC treatment. Remission is rare in the first year of very early arthritis, occurring in <20% of the patients. Also, the need to start DMARDs was not influenced by GC treatment.

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise existing evidence on a target oriented approach for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search including all clinical trials testing clinical, functional, or structural values of a targeted treatment approach. Our search covered Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases until December 2008 and also conference abstracts (2007, 2008). RESULTS: The primary search yielded 5881 citations; after the selection process, 76 papers underwent detailed review. Of these, only seven strategic clinical trials were extracted: four studies randomised patients to routine or targeted treatment, two compared two different randomised targets and one compared targeted treatment to a historical control group. Five trials dealt with early RA patients. All identified studies showed significantly better clinical outcomes of targeted approaches than routine approaches. Disability was reported in two studies with no difference between groups. Four studies compared radiographic outcomes, two showing significant benefit of the targeted approach. CONCLUSION: Only few studies employed randomised controlled settings to test the value of treatment to a specific target. However, they provided unanimous evidence for benefits of targeted approaches. Nevertheless, more data on radiographic and functional outcomes and on patients with established RA are needed.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force.

BACKGROUND: Aiming at therapeutic targets has reduced the risk of organ failure in many diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Such targets have not been defined for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVE: /st> To develop recommendations for achieving optimal therapeutic outcomes in RA. METHODS: A task force of rheumatologists and a patient developed a set of recommendations on the basis of evidence derived from a systematic literature review and expert opinion; these were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >60 experts from various regions of the world in a Delphi-like procedure. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. RESULTS: The treat-to-target activity resulted in 10 recommendations. The treatment aim was defined as remission with low disease activity being an alternative goal in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with appropriate therapeutic adaptation to reach the desired state within 3 to a maximum of 6 months was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity which include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease. Levels of agreement were very high for many of these recommendations (> or =9/10). CONCLUSION: The 10 recommendations are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA based on evidence and expert opinion.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.

Intranasal administration of recombinant human cartilage glycoprotein-39 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis: a phase II, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-finding trial.

BACKGROUND: Autoantigen-specific immunotherapy by mucosal tolerance induction via the intranasal route is an attractive therapeutic option for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Human cartilage glycoprotein-39 (HC gp-39) has been identified as a potential key autoantigen in RA. Based on animal studies, intranasal administration of the autoantigen is hypothesised to induce immunological tolerance in patients with RA and to ameliorate disease activity. In a phase I/IIA clinical trial in patients with RA, intranasal application of HC gp-39 was safe and well tolerated. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of intranasally administered fully human, recombinant HC gp-39 (Org 39141) by a large clinical study. METHODS: In a 13-week multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-finding, proof-of-concept trial, patients with RA (disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) naive or after washout of DMARD treatment) were randomised to receive either intranasal applications of placebo or HC gp-39 in doses of 30, 150, 300 or 600 microg, once a week. The primary efficacy variable was the 28 joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28). RESULTS: During the treatment period the DAS28 decreased similarly for all treatment groups-including placebo-indicating lack of efficacy of intranasal HC gp-39 treatment in the current setting. Safety variables were similar for all study groups. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that with the treatment protocol used (dose levels and frequency of dosing), intranasal treatment with Org 39141 was safe but did not result in more clinical improvement than in placebo-treated patients.

Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial.

BACKGROUND: Remission and radiographic non-progression are goals in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. The aim of the combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active early rheumatoid arthritis (COMET) trial is to compare remission and radiographic non-progression in patients treated with methotrexate monotherapy or with methotrexate plus etanercept. METHODS: 542 outpatients who were methotrexate-naive and had had early moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis for 3-24 months were randomly assigned to receive either methotrexate alone titrated up from 7.5 mg a week to a maximum of 20 mg a week by week 8 or methotrexate (same titration) plus etanercept 50 mg a week. Coprimary endpoints at 52 weeks were remission measured with the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) and radiographic non-progression measured with modified total Sharp score. Treatment was allocated with a computerised randomisation and enrolment system, which masked both participants and carers. Analysis was done by modified intention to treat with last observation carried forward for missing data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00195494). FINDINGS: 274 participants were randomly assigned to receive combined treatment and 268 methotrexate alone. 132 of 265 (50%, 95% CI 44-56%) patients who took combined treatment and were available for assessment achieved clinical remission compared with 73 of 263 (28%, 23-33%) taking methotrexate alone (effect difference 22.05%, 95%CI 13.96-30.15%, p<0.0001). 487 evaluable patients had severe disease (DAS28>5.1). 196 of 246 (80%, 75-85%) and 135 of 230 (59%, 53-65%), respectively, achieved radiographic non-progression (20.98%, 12.97-29.09%, p<0.0001). Serious adverse events were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: Both clinical remission and radiographic non-progression are achievable goals in patients with early severe rheumatoid arthritis within 1 year of combined treatment with etanercept plus methotrexate. FUNDING: Wyeth Research.